Delhi High Court - Orders
Sterlite Technologies Limited vs Anupam Singh & Ors on 3 June, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS (OS) 349/2022
STERLITE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nirupam Lodha, Ms. Asavri Jain,
Ms. Shivangi Narang and Mr. Gautam
Wadhwa, Advs. (M:9837334866)
versus
ANUPAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 03.06.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A. 9309/2022 (for exemption)
2. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified/cleared/typed or translated copies of documents. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. I.A. 9309/2022 is disposed of.
I.A.9311/2022 (u/S 12A)
4. This is an application seeking exemption instituting pre-litigation mediation. In view of the orders passed in CS (COMM) 132/2022 titled Upgrad Education v. Intellipaat Software, the application is allowed.
5. I.A.9311/2022 disposed of.
I.A. 9310/2022 (exemption from advance service to the Defendants)
6. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff has sought ex parte ad-interim injunction along with the appointment of the Local Commissioners, CS (OS) 349/2022 Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:08.08.2022 12:22:54 exemption from advance service to the Defendants is granted.
7. I.A. 9310/2022 is disposed of.
I.A.9308/2022 (for court fee)
8. This is an application for extending of time for filing the court fee. Let the same be filed within 2 days.
9. I.A.9308/2022 is disposed of.
I.A.9307/2022 (additional documents)
10. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter, 'Commercial Courts Act'). The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
11. I.A.9307/2022 is disposed of.
CS (COMM) 349/2022
12. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
13. Issue summons to the Defendants through all modes upon filing of Process Fee.
14. The summons to the Defendants shall indicate that a written statement to the plaint shall be positively filed within 30 days from date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
15. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file a replication within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replication shall not CS (OS) 349/2022 Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:08.08.2022 12:22:54 be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
16. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 18 th August, 2022. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.
17. List before Court on 10th October, 2022.
I.A.9305/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC)
18. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff - Sterlite Technologies Limited, seeking protection of their confidential information, which the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 - Mr. Anupam Singh and Mr. Akhil Garg respectively, have received during the course of their employment with the Plaintiff. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant No.2 - Mr. Akhil Garg joined the Plaintiff in its Technology Department on 22nd July, 2013 and Defendant No.1 - Mr. Anupam Singh - joined the Plaintiff as Deputy Manager - IPR on 4th March, 2019.
19. In early 2019, the Plaintiff is stated to have been in the process of development of Intermittent Bonded Ribbon - Optical Fibre Ribbons having spider web structure (hereinafter, 'IBR') technology products. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were key employees in the intellectual property team and the technical team respectively, which was involved in the development of the said IBR technology. The said employees had received various disclosures during the course of their employment. Some such email communications have been shown to the Court.
20. On 27th February, 2020, a patent application bearing No.202011008364 (IN'364) is stated to have been filed in the name of Mr. CS (OS) 349/2022 Page 3 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:08.08.2022 12:22:54 Swapnil Sharma, Mr. Kishore Sahoo and Defendant No.2 - Akhil Garg, who was shown to be one of the named inventors, for the invention titled 'Leaf Shaped Intermittent Bonded Optical Fibre Ribbon'. Another patent application bearing No.202011008310 (IN'310) is stated to have been separately filed by and in the name of the Plaintiff for the invention titled 'Intermittently Bonded Optical Fibre Ribbon With Unequal Bond and Gap Lengths'.
21. Immediately thereafter, in May, 2020, the Defendant No.2 resigned from the post of Technology Engineer of the Plaintiff-Company. In June, 2020, the Defendant No.3 announced as part of its disclosure under Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, that it was working on IBR technology products such as spider web ribbon cable, which as per the Plaintiff's stand, appear to be identical to the IBR technology products which were developed by the Plaintiff.
22. A legal notice dated 10th July, 2020 was sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.2 seeking that Defendant No.2 does not, in any manner, use or misappropriate any confidential information of the Plaintiff or disclose the same to any third-party, including Defendant No.3. In response dated 4th September, 2020 to the said legal notice, the Defendant No.2 denied the said allegations.
23. Thereafter, in August, 2020, the Defendant No.1 also left the employment of the Plaintiff Company and joined with the Defendant No.3. The Plaintiff surprisingly realised later that on 30th March, 2021, two patent applications bearing Nos.202121014389 (IN'389) and 202121008259 (IN'259) were filed by the Defendant No.3, in respect of the similar IBR CS (OS) 349/2022 Page 4 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:08.08.2022 12:22:54 technology as was revealed when the said applications were published, under Section 11A of the Patents Act, 1970. As per the Plaintiff, in the said application being IN'259, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have been named as the only two inventors. Similarly, in the application being IN'389, Defendant No.2 alone has been named as being the inventor.
24. Mr. Akhil Sibal, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that the impugned technology is an advanced technology which makes the optic fibre more flexible due to the manner in which the bonding is effected. He submits that there are emails on the basis of which the Plaintiff is able to show that the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 were receiving information as being part of the development team for the Plaintiff's IBR technology products, and such information has been disclosed to the Defendant No.3, leading to the filing of the said two patent applications by the Defendant No.3, reflecting the said two Defendants/employees as inventors.
25. He submits that the curious position is that the Defendant No.1, who was merely an IPR attorney in-house with the Plaintiff Company, is being shown as inventor and he does not have any technical knowledge. He, thus, submits that the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 ought to be restrained from misusing the confidential information received by them during the course of their employment with the Plaintiff. An application seeking the appointment of the Local Commissioners has also been filed by the Plaintiff.
26. Heard ld. Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff. Considering the chronology of events, as also, the timing of filing of the patent applications by the Defendants and the various drawings of the impugned invention which have been placed on record, this Court is convinced that the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte interim injunction.
CS (OS) 349/2022 Page 5 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:08.08.2022 12:22:54Accordingly, the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 are restrained from misusing the confidential information or proprietary information received by them during the course of employment with the Plaintiff to any third parties including the Defendant no.3.
27. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be done within one week after the execution of the Local Commission.
28. Reply to the application be filed within four weeks from the service of the present order along with the paper book.
29. List the application before the Court on 10th October, 2022. I.A.9306/2022 (seeking appointment of LC)
30. This is an application filed on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking appointment of Local Commissioners. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the Plaintiff and the ex parte interim injunction granted hereinabove in I.A. 9305/2022, this Court deems it fit to appoint the Local Commissioners to visit the premises of the Defendant No.3.
31. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the following persons, two of whom are patent agents, present in Court, are appointed as Local Commissioners to visit the premises of the Defendant No.3:
S. No. Name of Local Address of the Fees
Defendant No.3's
Commissioner
Premises
1 Mr. Prithvi Kanda, 8, Commercial Rs.1,00,000/-
Advocate Complex, Masjid
[M:9779427374] Moth, Greater
Kailash II, New
Delhi-110048.
CS (OS) 349/2022 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:08.08.2022
12:22:54
2 Mr. Ankur Vyas, Optical Fibre Cable Rs.1,50,000/-
Advocate Plant: L 35-37,
[M:8690011102] Industrial Area, Phase
II, Verna Electronics
City, Salceta, Goa -
403722
3 Mr. Rajiv Kr. Optical Fibre Plant: Rs.1,50,000/-
Choudhary, Advocate Plot No. S-9, e-City,
[M: 9811028098] FAB City, Ravirayala
Village,
Maheshwaram
Mandal, Rangareddy
District, Hyderabad -
501359, Telangana
32. The mandate of the Local Commissioners is as under:
a. The local commissioners shall verify, confirm and ascertain details of optical fiber cables product manufactured, developed, produced and/or supplied by Defendant No.3 using IBR technology, by collecting evidence of such manufacture/production and supply of infringing product and by taking samples of each of such products;
b. Prepare an inventory of all optical fiber cables incorporating the IBR technology, if found to be manufactured;
c. Inspect all computer systems/ laptops (including backups thereof) that were/are being used by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 CS (OS) 349/2022 Page 7 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:08.08.2022 12:22:54 during the course of their employment with Defendant No.3, and to create clone / mirror copy of hard drives of each of the said computer/ system and laptop for submitting before the Hon'ble Court;
d. take photographs and videography if deemed necessary;
e. The accounts of the Defendants shall be inspected by the Local Commissioners. For the said purpose, the Defendants shall give access to the computer systems which contain the accounts of the Defendants. If the computer has any password, the password shall also be given to the Local Commissioners. The accounts shall be procured on a 'pen drive' which shall be filed in the Court with the report of the Commissioners. However, the copy of the same shall not be given to the Plaintiff at this stage.
f. Seek police assistance of the local SHO should the need arise. The concerned Station House Officer (SHO) shall render all assistance required for execution of the Commission;
g. Direct the Local Commissioner to break open locks in case of resistance and seek police assistance, if necessary."
33. The Local Commissioner shall also serve a copy of the present order along with the paperbook to the Defendants.
34. The Local Commission shall be executed on or before 15th June, 2022.
CS (OS) 349/2022 Page 8 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:08.08.2022 12:22:5435. The fee of the Local Commissioners is fixed as mentioned in the Table above. The same shall be borne by the Plaintiff along with expenses for travel, boarding and lodging etc.
36. Reports of the Local Commissioners be filed by 8th July, 2022, post which the Plaintiff is permitted to move an application seeking early hearing of the matter.
37. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the court fee is yet to be deposited. It is made clear that the present order will be issued only after the court fee is deposited and proof of the same is furnished.
38. Further, if there is any imminent launch in respect of products using the impugned technology by the Defendant No.3, the Plaintiff is permitted to approach the Court.
39. List on 10th October, 2022.
40. Order, dasti.
41. The present shall not be uploaded for a period of two weeks for enabling the execution of the Local Commission.
42. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JUNE 3, 2022/dk/ad CS (OS) 349/2022 Page 9 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:08.08.2022 12:22:54